We are a Kali Yuga culture

[Queequeg]

When I was a kid, I have a memory of laying down in the back seat of my parent's car driving back to our suburban home from a day in NYC. Looking up at the big apartment buildings and neon lights and street lamps from my vantage, and reflecting on all the stimulation and people I encountered that day, it occurred to me those people were like moths around a flame, or a deer caught in headlights.

Good point, Vasana.

In my more morbid moments, Vasana, I think of developed nations where the trends the comics you posted hold particularly true, and the stark decline of birth rates, decrease in life spans - probably related to the effect those trends have on us - and think, well, we're probably in the midst of some population spike. The ones who can't handle the stimulation will be selected out.

The question is if the humanity can survive this selection process and adjustment of population before the conditions on the planet give out and become hostile to our survival.

[well wisher]

Rings true to me; my own personal experience's is that digital entertainment so addictive, that I have spent too much time in front of computers and brain being over-stimulated and straining my eyes too. Plus my current job is in front of computers of being IT-nature, so I may have gone overboard.

As a consequence, I have been near-sighted since my early school years. Maybe too much time spent on TV & computer home entertainment.

Guess I need to spend more time away from the computer and internet then!
Maybe physical exercise is good counter-balance, or even just sitting there and do nothing!

Maybe some can overcome by sheer willpower?

[Yavana]

This is my digital device. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my digital device is useless. Without my digital device, I am useless. I must charge my digital device fully. I must respond to all notifications. I must create content. I will. My digital device and I know that what counts online is not the apps we use, the media we stream, or the profiles we make. We know that it is the engagement that count. We will engage.

My digital device is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its unlocked capabilities. I will keep my digital device clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

Before the internet I swear this creed. My digital device and I are the defenders of my data. We are the masters of our social media. We are the saviors of my nondescript large media files.

So be it, until every wrong individual on the internet has been corrected and every social media post has been viewed.

[Wayfarer]

A nice Introductory comic describing the concept found below.

It makes many good points, but I am wary of explanations of humans based wholly and solely on evolutionary science. That's not to disparage evolutionary science in the least, and I am not an advocate of pseudo-scientific theories such as 'intelligent design'. It's more the cultural impact of the role of evolutionary theory which now occupies position that used to be provided by the broader 'wisdom traditions' of western culture. The conventional take on this is that understanding our attributes through the lens of evolutionary biology is more enlightened, scientific and in accord with the facts, than the traditional religious perspectives which are grounded in mythology and pre-scientific thinking.

There is big gap in this account however. And that is that there is only one real operative factor in evolutionary theory, and that concerns survival and procreation. The theory itself is an account of 'how species evolve'; it's not really a theory about ethics as such, and I question how much philosophical depth it really even offers. Much of traditional or pre-modern philosophy, whether Biblical or 'pagan', when examined through the perspective of evolutionary biology, seems irrelevant or even just quaint in the light of the supposed 'cold hard facts' that are revealed by the dispassionate light of scientific analysis.

But that very mode of analysis is in some profound sense 'objectifying'. That is, it treats humanity as 'a species', and then delivers its prognostications through the same perspective with which it views other species. As Gloria Origgi put it in her critical review of an essay by Steve Pinker:

Philosophers and humanists are interested in what has been called, in 20th-century continental philosophy, the human condition, that is, a sense of uneasiness that human beings may feel about their own existence and the reality that confronts them (as in the case of modernity with all its changes in the proximate environment of humans and corresponding changes in their modes of existence). Scientists are more interested in human nature. If they discover that human nature doesn’t exist and human beings are, like cells, merely parts of a bigger aggregate, to whose survival they contribute, and all they feel and think is just a matter of illusion (a sort of Matrix scenario), then, as far as science is concerned, that’s it, and science should go on investigating humans by considering this new fact about their nature. I think that Pinker makes a “slip of the tongue” in his article when he writes: “This is an extraordinary time for the understanding of the human condition”. He clearly means human nature and he moves back and forth between these two expressions in his article when they should be kept distinct.

The point is, I think one of the major de-humanising factors of the modern world is the so-called 'scientific worldview' which treats humans as objects of analysis. Bhikkhu Bodhi remarks in his commentary on the Brahmajāla Sutta that most modern people take it as a scientifically-established fact that life began by a kind of cosmic accident. Not that he, of course, has any kind of inclination to any form of creationism whatever. It's more that the demolition of the biblical creation myth (which from a Buddhist perspective, is a form of eternalism) has engendered its opposite, which is a form of nihilism. And nihilism is actually the pervasive mood or outlook of our modern world. Nothing really matters. It doesn't have to expressed as some grand Nietzschean 'sturm-und-drang' - it might be as simple as a shrug, a 'whatever'. 'Doesn't really matter'. Nothing does. It's too much of a burden to think that it might.

(This hard-hitting keynote lecture by Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence, is also very well worth reading, in my opinion.)

[Johnny Dangerous]

I think the comic and the commentary on the destructiveness of the nihilist/materialist philosophy are not at odds at all. Part of the reason for over-stimulation is the sort of ethical hedonism and notion of "progress" that comes from the materialist view, combined with the evolutionary instincts mentioned in the comic, where life (being pointless) is mainly about acquiring more and better experiences and things before we become dirt, because hey, why not.

While Buddhadharma does not share a creationist view of the "purpose" of existence, it certainly takes a teleological one. This means that living a life which is centered around stimulation and pleasure of the kind we are around today leads one directly away from the teleological purpose of life, such as it is.

The irony is, due to our conditioning, this is also how we approach Dharma by default too, as a thing to collect and play with...IME it takes some work to realize this is going on, and to address it.

[amanitamusc]

I think the comic and the commentary on the destructiveness of the nihilist/materialist philosophy are not at odds at all. Part of the reason for over-stimulation is the sort of ethical hedonism and notion of "progress" that comes from the materialist view, combined with the evolutionary instincts mentioned in the comic, where life (being pointless) is mainly about acquiring more and better experiences and things before we become dirt, because hey, why not.

While Buddhadharma does not share a creationist view of the "purpose" of existence, it certainly takes a teleological one. This means that living a life which is centered around stimulation and pleasure of the kind we are around today leads one directly away from the teleological purpose of life, such as it is.

The irony is, due to our conditioning, this is also how we approach Dharma by default too, as a thing to collect and play with...IME it takes some work to realize this is going on, and to address it.

We have to be careful comparing Buddhadharma with terms like teleological when they are mostly used in theological
and philosophical terms.As far as" how we approach Dharma" this seems a broad generalization when our individual
relationship with Dharma is much more nuanced .I feel fortunate to have connected with Dzogchen and look no more
for teachings or teachers.Not that I don't need to practice but I have all the empowerments and teachings needed.
It is true there is much Dharma shopping but I would not say it is the norm.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I think the comic and the commentary on the destructiveness of the nihilist/materialist philosophy are not at odds at all. Part of the reason for over-stimulation is the sort of ethical hedonism and notion of "progress" that comes from the materialist view, combined with the evolutionary instincts mentioned in the comic, where life (being pointless) is mainly about acquiring more and better experiences and things before we become dirt, because hey, why not.

While Buddhadharma does not share a creationist view of the "purpose" of existence, it certainly takes a teleological one. This means that living a life which is centered around stimulation and pleasure of the kind we are around today leads one directly away from the teleological purpose of life, such as it is.

The irony is, due to our conditioning, this is also how we approach Dharma by default too, as a thing to collect and play with...IME it takes some work to realize this is going on, and to address it.

We have to be careful comparing Buddhadharma with terms like teleological when they are mostly used in theological
and philosophical terms.As far as" how we approach Dharma" this seems a broad generalization when our individual
relationship with Dharma is much more nuanced .I feel fortunate to have connected with Dzogchen and look no more
for teachings or teachers.Not that I don't need to practice but I have all the empowerments and teachings needed.
It is true there is much Dharma shopping but I would not say it is the norm.

Teleology is just a descriptive philosophical term here. Dzogchen is just as teleological as any other form of Buddhadharma. You can quibble over words, but it is an apt word to describe the worldview of Dharma, -any version- in a conversation like this. For instance Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds describe three cosmologies, The one-cosmos of Abidharma, the worlds of infinitude of Mahayana, and then the sort of non-cosmology of Dzogchen. Each is most definitely teleogical, particularly the Mahayana cosmology. Dzogchen of course sees things as already being complete, and in that sense is outside of any view of progression towards a goal or a chronology. Still, even there there is a process of beings failing recognizing the base, etc. So a "purpose" is stated in the cosmology, whether someone overtly says it or not, for the purpose of this conversation the implication is a teleological one, just different because Dzogchen basically eschews time, lol.

As to the other thing, I think you are just talking about external Dharma shopping, that's not what i'm talking about exactly, that is actually just a manifestation of what is going internally, which is sentient beings attempting to strategize the elimination of their suffering through confusion, acquisition and action...this is particularly ridiculous from a Dzogchen point of view, but I think that likely most of us are doing it, on one level or another, since we are here.

I don't see it as being something that we are likely to be entirely free of, outside of those with perhaps a very high level of realization, it's just something one can be aware of. In short, on some level almost everyone in a body is a spiritual materialist to some degree.

[Vasana]

A nice Introductory comic describing the concept found below.

It makes many good points, but I am wary of explanations of humans based wholly and solely on evolutionary science.

I'm not in the headspace to reply point by point to your post but I'm in agreement with Jonny. As was pointed out, the 'supernormal stimuli' idea is not at all incompatible with a Buddhist or philosophic critique of the hedonistic, materialistic nihilism we see dominant in western cultures today. Plus it's possible to look at neuroscience without strictly tying it to evolutionary science if that helps separate today's experience from our evolutionary past. Dharma doesn't need neuroscience and there are limitations when we get in to the territory of consciousness but neuroscience can certainly contribute quite well to our understanding of certain aspects of cognition and volition, both central Buddhist tennets.

There is hedonic motivation and eudamonic motivation. Much of what is available to our sesnses today is evidently super-normal whether viewed from an evolutionary perspective or not, i.e: ultra processed, over saturated, chemically & aesthetically enhanced, substituted etc

The fact is that in the commercial spaces of today (real world and digital) we have what behavioural economists call a 'choice architecture' very clearly designed to 'nudge' (inflame and excite) our hedonic motivation (kleshas) rather than to help cultivate a dharma-supporting sense of eudamonia. Neuromarketing is also a thing...welcome to the anthropocene!

And for me at least, from a subjectively experiential vantage point, the concept rings true and I bet we all have first hand experience of being hedonistically motivated countless times in any given day. Our senses crave novelty, diversity and we often opt for the more exciting of two options which may not always be a bad thing, but in the context of realizing wisdom beyond attachment is evidently problematic.

• 'We live in a society whose whole policy is to excite every nerve in the human body and keep it at the highest pitch of artificial tension, to strain every human desire to the limit and to create as many new desires and synthetic passions as possible, in order to cater to them with the products of our factories and printing presses and movie studios and all the rest.'
  
  Thomas Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain

[Johnny Dangerous]

I work in addiction treatment, one thing I realized recently is that a huge part of the modern world is basically one big slot machine.

[Vasana]

In my more morbid moments, Vasana, I think of developed nations where the trends the comics you posted hold particularly true, and the stark decline of birth rates, decrease in life spans - probably related to the effect those trends have on us - and think, well, we're probably in the midst of some population spike. The ones who can't handle the stimulation will be selected out.

The question is if the humanity can survive this selection process and adjustment of population before the conditions on the planet give out and become hostile to our survival.

With kids as young as 2 or 3 using smart phones and tablets I wouldn't be surprised if this influenced genetics after long enough. But indeed the big factor is our tampering with the 'safe operating space' of the earth by passing through so many of the planetary boundaries. (Which may also have implications for the accessibility and ability to practice the Dharma)



Image: headlines over Kate Raworth's doughnut economics model adapated from the safe operating space/Planetary boundaries model of the Stockholm resilience center.

[stevie]

... I'm interested to hear from your experiential points of view about what elements of today's era are problematic for realizing the dharma.

If I take 'realizing the dharma' to mean 'practicing according to the Buddha's teachings' then distraction that goes unnoticed is the main issue for me. But since I only know the present time I cannot compare with former times. I mean in former times I would maybe not even have been able to learn about the Buddha's teachings.

[Vasana]

... I'm interested to hear from your experiential points of view about what elements of today's era are problematic for realizing the dharma.

If I take 'realizing the dharma' to mean 'practicing according to the Buddha's teachings' then distraction that goes unnoticed is the main issue for me. But since I only know the present time I cannot compare with former times. I mean in former times I would maybe not even have been able to learn about the Buddha's teachings.

We might not know what it was like to live back then but we can still use inference and imagination- we know of things that are part of today's world but not of the past and that can be the basis of our 'comparison' as exemplified by the supernormal stimuli example. Pretty sure no one was distracted by the internet many centuries or millenia in the past. How many of the unnoticed distractions you mention are unique in form or at least intensity to this age?

[stevie]

... I'm interested to hear from your experiential points of view about what elements of today's era are problematic for realizing the dharma.

If I take 'realizing the dharma' to mean 'practicing according to the Buddha's teachings' then distraction that goes unnoticed is the main issue for me. But since I only know the present time I cannot compare with former times. I mean in former times I would maybe not even have been able to learn about the Buddha's teachings.

We might not know what it was like to live back then but we can still use inference and imagination- we know of things that are part of today's world but not of the past and that can be the basis of our 'comparison' as exemplified by the supernormal stimuli example.

Without the internet and my education I would not have been able to learn about Buddhism. So although the internet can be a lot of distraction it has been beneficial for me in this regard.

How many of the unnoticed distractions you mention are unique in form or at least intensity to this age?

Certainly many potential distractions are offered these days. But then ... without these where would be the opportunities for practice? Also I've been very critical of consumerism at a young age already.

[Wayfarer]

Maybe we could say that nihilism, materialism and meaninglessness are the shadow side of modernity. I mean, overall, I really value the amazing things that living in the modern world makes available. By all measures, most of us are better off than our ancestors, with longer life expectancy and an overall higher standard of living. I think the Buddhist attitude is, don’t loose sight of the potential this provides to actually practice dharma. A lot of what is valued by this same ‘modern world’ is completely antagonistic to dharma. It is self-centred, self-seeking and entirely hedonistic. But it doesn’t have to be. Really there’s never been a better time to be alive, but great opportunity also entails great risk.

[Vasana]

Without the internet and my education I would not have been able to learn about Buddhism. So although the internet can be a lot of distraction it has been beneficial for me in this regard.

Sure, there are undeiable perks and quirks. I think taking stock of the pros and cons is sensible rather than purely opting for either a pessimism bias or optimism bias.

How many of the unnoticed distractions you mention are unique in form or at least intensity to this age?

Certainly many potential distractions are offered these days. But then ... without these where would be the opportunities for practice? Also I've been very critical of consumerism at a young age already.

That's a very noble attitude to have. Of course the grass is always greener and we have to remember how fortunate we are but at the same time we have to be realistic about which factors hinder us. Sure it's all karma but the environments and cultures we find ourselves in do have an influence on our practice.

By all measures, most of us are better off than our ancestors, with longer life expectancy and an overall higher standard of living.

[...] Really there’s never been a better time to be alive,

Which part of the global population does 'most of us' refer to? How does inequality tie in to this? In the context of poverty if people are using standard poverty metrics borrowed from the neo-liberal, philantro-capitalist complex then it's worth considering how true such claims of progress really are.

A good recent article addressing the claim that poverty is decreasing:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... neoliberal

[PSM]

I work in addiction treatment, one thing I realized recently is that a huge part of the modern world is basically one big slot machine.

It is, and very deliberately so. I think a big backlash is on the way.

[Wayfarer]

A good recent article addressing the claim that poverty is decreasing:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... neoliberal

Roser’s graph illustrates a story of coerced proletarianisation.

The Guardian story exemplifies a typically leftist response to a typically conservative argument.

I think the world has plenty of problems and a great deal of inequality, but I still overall support and believe in the ideals of liberal democracy.

//edit// I should add, politically I tend towards centre-left i.e. support the importance of public sector, higher taxation on the wealthy, public education and health, but also recognise the importance of free enterprise and unfettered markets. //

[Vasana]

A good recent article addressing the claim that poverty is decreasing:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... neoliberal

Roser’s graph illustrates a story of coerced proletarianisation.

The Guardian story exemplifies a typically leftist response to a typically conservative argument.

I think the world has plenty of problems and a great deal of inequality, but I still overall support and believe in the ideals of liberal democracy.

//edit// I should add, politically I tend towards centre-left i.e. support the importance of public sector, higher taxation on the wealthy, public education and health, but also recognise the importance of free enterprise and unfettered markets. //

I'm not sure whether it's typically leftist matters. It's a critical look at the nuances conveniently overlooked when speaking about the topic at hand. Anyone who can engage in critical thought would acknowledge the interplay between the wealth disparity of the present with past and present colonialism and wealth extractive practices. Modern poverty is not an accidental fact of nature. Liberal democracy is a nice idea but we are kidding ourselves if we think that's what we have rather than a neoliberal plutocracy /corporatocracy.

Also, I doubt people like Bill Gates or Bono overtly identify as a conservative. Neoliberalism is sneaky in that it co-opts even the most 'progressive,' ideologies for it's own purposes often extending as far as those on more extreme ends of the left and counter-cultural spectrum.

[Wayfarer]

The point that I was trying to make, is that it is still an incredible time to be alive. Yes, there is massive inequality, the threat of environmental destruction and economic collapse are real. But even so, there are huge opportunities. This forum itself depends on the innovations that have seen the internet become part of every life. People in developing countries now have access to all kinds of information because of mobile phone technology. They can sign up here and participate by means that couldn't even have been foreseen a few decades back.

My father was a world authority on population dynamics, fertility and so on. (He died in 1993.) He was convinced, in the 1960s and early 70's, that by the year 2000 India would have collapsed into mass starvation. He never foresaw the 'tech boom' in India that has enabled hundreds of millions of people to move into a non-agrarian lifestyle.

I do respect the point the Guardian article makes, and I will bookmark that author. I think he has important things to say. But at the same time, I don't want to convey the impression that I am anti-science or opposed to liberal democracy as a political philosophy. I'm anti-materialism, but materialism is an idea that's parasitic on the broader Western culture. Or maybe it's part of the price that had to be paid for the changes that had to happen. As I said, the shadow side of modernity. But overall, I'm still optimistic, even though it often seems impossible.

[Vasana]

The point that I was trying to make, is that it is still an incredible time to be alive. Yes, there is massive inequality, the threat of environmental destruction and economic collapse are real. But even so, there are huge opportunities. This forum itself depends on the innovations that have seen the internet become part of every life.

I agree that it's an incredible time to be alive and that for many people there are new opportunities which were not available. I suppose my point is still that these opportunities are no where near as equally spread as we might first assume and in some cases these opportunities may soon be diminishing if they aren't already. (e.g -places with wars, economic & enviromental collapses and scarcity issues) If we see the Dharma as valuable in this world then averting these influences should at least concern us. (without it becoming some sort of proselytizing mission)

People in developing countries now have access to all kinds of information because of mobile phone technology. They can sign up here and participate by means that couldn't even have been foreseen a few decades back.

Increased accessibility to the teachings is undoubtedly a great benefit of modernity but 'mere' accessibility is not the only determining factor for someone (from developing country or not) actually deciding to access the teachings a Kali-yoga culture, that's the point.

But overall, I'm still optimistic, even though it often seems impossible.

Optimism against all odds is a good mentality to have and I don't want to sound like i'm knocking that but optimism can very easily be of the blind or biased variety that makes us either ignore the reality of those experiencing less than favourable conditions or become complacent in helping to facilitate more favourable conditions whether in a secular or dharmic context but perhaps that's an idea more applicable for 'engaged Buddhism'.